Lance Armstrong was rejected by a Texas appeals court and the Texas Supreme Court in his bid to avoid being deposed. / Sandro Pace, AP

by Brent Schrotenboer, USA TODAY Sports

by Brent Schrotenboer, USA TODAY Sports

Lance Armstrong had tried to avoid this day for years. But on Thursday, it finally happened â?? deposition day.

The disgraced former cyclist was forced to provide sworn videotaped testimony about his doping history as part of a fraud case filed against him by SCA Promotions, a sports insurance company in Dallas.

The deposition testimony, which was not open to the public, had been a long time in the making. It also came after months of fighting from Armstrong, who asked a Texas appeals court and the Texas Supreme Court to stop the deposition from taking place.

Both courts rejected his request, forcing him to sit for questions under SCA Promotions attorney Jeffrey Tillotson, who recently said he is the only opposing attorney to interview Armstrong under oath about doping. In a previous case involving SCA Promotions, Tillotson also questioned Armstrong under oath when he lied and denied doping in 2005-06.

The current case stems from a lawsuit the company filed against Armstrong in February 2013, seeking the return of $12 million in costs and bonuses it paid him for winning the Tour de France in 2002-04. The case later moved to arbitration, where a panel is scheduled to hear the case later this summer. Armstrong was subpoenaed for Thursday's deposition as part the evidence-gathering process before the hearing.

In a separate fraud lawsuit filed by the federal government, Armstrong was scheduled for another deposition on June 23. But the government recently said it would postpone that deposition and others it had scheduled for this month.

After years of denials, Armstrong, 42, confessed to doping last year in a televised interview with Oprah Winfrey. He avoided giving details in that interview and since then, he has not been placed under oath to answer doping questions from a hostile attorney, besides some written answers he was compelled to give late last year in a different case.

His attorneys have fought attempts to place him under oath in order to protect him from risk. Because most of the events in question happened more than nine years ago, memories could be faulty, possibly leading to inconsistent testimony that could weaken his defense with two fraud cases pending against him.

Then there's the issue of his false testimony with SCA Promotions in 2005-06. In 2004, Armstrong sued SCA Promotions, claiming breach of contract after the company refused to pay his bonus for winning the Tour de France. The company withheld the payment because it suspected he cheated to win the race, leading to his deposition with Tillotson in 2005.

In that 2005 testimony, Armstrong said he "never" took performance-enhancing drugs. "How many times do I have to say it?" Armstrong asked Tillotson then. He also testified, "I race the bike straight up fair and square."

That false testimony helped Armstrong win a $7.5 million settlement from the company in 2006. The settlement agreement stipulated that the case could not be reopened, a point his attorneys have stressed in trying to block the current case from proceeding.

Tillotson previously said Armstrong's false testimony is too old for him to face perjury charges under the statute of limitations. But he said SCA Promotions wants Armstrong sanctioned for his lies by the same arbitration panel that handled the previous case.

"Our position is simple," Tillotson told USA TODAY Sports May 30. "No one should be able to relentlessly perjure themselves and get away with it."